Godfrey vs. Godfrey
03A01-9708-CH-00319
Trial Court Judge: Frederick D. Mcdonald

G.E. Capital vs. Belinda Young
W1998-00729-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: John R. Mccarroll, Jr.

State vs. Electroplating, Inc. and Ross Cunningham
01C01-9612-CR-00535
Trial Court Judge: Walter C. Kurtz

State vs. Michael Hughes
01C01-9701-CR-00021
Trial Court Judge: Ann Lacy Johns

01C01-9705-CR-00194
01C01-9705-CR-00194

State vs. Jack Sutton
01C01-9708-CR-00349
Trial Court Judge: J. Randall Wyatt, Jr.

State vs. Stogdill
03C01-9507-CC-00188
Trial Court Judge: W. Lee Asbury

State vs. Garrison
03C01-9601-CR-00050
Trial Court Judge: William M. Dender

State vs. Nuchols
03C01-9709-CC-00400

State vs. Chastain
03C01-9706-CR-00205

State vs. Haycraft
03C01-9705-CR-00196

State vs. Daniel
03C01-9709-CR-00404

State of Tennessee vs. Donald Gene Brooks
01C01-9703-CC-00099
Authoring Judge: Judge Curwood Witt
Trial Court Judge: Judge John H. Gasaway, III

The defendant, Donald Gene Brooks, stands convicted of first degree felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, theft of property valued over $1,000, and setting fire to personal property, all related to the robbery and killing of Joseph J. Wisniewski. He received his convictions following a jury trial in the Montgomery County Criminal Court. Brooks is incarcerated in the Department of Correction serving his effective sentence of life plus 27 years. In this direct appeal, Brooks challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the length of sentence imposed. Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

State of Tennessee vs. Devon Welles
01C01-9706-CC-00230
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge W. Charles Lee

The Defendant, Devon Wells, appeals his convictions of two counts of sale of a Schedule II controlled substan ce following a jury trial in the Lincoln County Circu it Court. The trial court sentenced him as a Range II Multiple Offender to two consecutive sentences of nine (9) and seven (7) years. He was also fined a total of $100,000 for the two convictions. In this appeal, Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the sentence imposed was excessive and contrary to law. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Randall Wayne Myers v. Royal Insurance Co.
01S01-9710-CH-00227
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor

Linda Shank v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc .
01S01-9709-CH-00189
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Robert E. Corlew, III,
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. Review of the findings of fact made by the trial court is de novo upon the record of the trial court, accompanied by a presumption of the correctness of the findings, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(2); Stone v. City of McMinnville, 896 S.W.2d 548, 55 (Tenn. 1995). The application of this standard requires this Court to weigh in more depth the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court in a workers' compensation case. See Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc., 746 S.W.2d 452, 456 (Tenn. 1988). In this case, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant Wal-Mart, alleging she was entitled to workers' compensation benefits as a result of a back injury and sinus injury sustained in the course of her employment. The trial court found the plaintiff's sinus injury was not compensable1 but the plaintiff's back injury was compensable, awarding her 38 percent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, temporary total disability benefits, and unpaid medical benefits for the services of Dr. Rex Arendall. The defendant appeals and presents the following issues: "I. Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-12(a)(5) and the facts of this case, the proof at trial preponderates against the trial court's finding that the plaintiff's back injury was causally related to the accident she reported of April 26, 1994. II. The trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff's back injury was subject to the six (6) times multiplier in Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(b) rather than the two and one-half (2 _) times multiplier in Tennessee Code Annotated _ 5-6-241(a)(1). III. The medical care of Dr. Rex Arendall was unauthorized and should not have been awarded by the trial court. IV. The trial court erred in refusing to admit into evidence release from work slips provided to defendant by the plaintiff and which were included in and became a part of her personnel file." We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 The plaintiff did not appeal the decision of the trial court with respect to her sinus injury. Therefore, the sinus injury will only be discussed for a clear understanding of her back injury. 2

Clayton Homes, Inc. v. Albert D. Bowling
03S01-9708-CH-00120
Authoring Judge: John K. Byers, Senior Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Chester S. Rainwater, Jr.
This workers' compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court in accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appeal has resulted from a ruling of the trial court that the employee's attorney was not entitled to an award of attorney's fees from medical expenses recovered in the case. At the trial below, the claim for compensation benefits was contested on all issues except for a stipulation regarding the employee's compensation rate and an agreement that the sum of $582.25 had been paid in temporary total disability benefits. The employer denied the herniated cervical discs were caused by the employee's work activities and contended if there were an injury, it was of a minor nature. After a contested hearing, the trial court found against the employer, Clayton Homes, Inc., on these issues. The Chancellor announced his decision on March 11, 1997 at a hearing where he made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On April 8, 1997, the employee filed a motion to be awarded discretionary costs and a separate motion seeking a 2% award of attorney's fees on the amount of medical expenses allowed in the case. A final judgment was entered on May 13, 1997, which provided for (1) an award of 15% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, (2) an award of $6,77.6 for additional temporary total disability benefits, (3) directing all accrued permanent partial benefits in the sum of $17,2.8 be paid in a lump sum, and (4) directing the employee to pay all necessary and reasonable medical expenses. In connection with the payment of medical expenses, the judgment stated: "That this sum shall be paid in the registry of the Court and after it has been determined as to the amount, that the attorney for the defendant is awarded a lien of the recovery herein for his attorney's fees of 2% for the recovery of this disputed medical." claytonh.wc 2

George Elliott v. City of Clarksville
01S01-9710-CV-00222
Authoring Judge: William S. Russell, Retired Judge
Trial Court Judge: Hon.

State of Tennessee vs. Anthony P. Geanes
02C01-9709-CC-00373
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Jon Kerry Blackwood

The Defendant, Anthony P. Geanes, appeals as of right from his conviction in the Circuit Court of Hardeman County. Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of delivery of a Schedule II con trolled substance. He was sentenced to serve fifteen (15) years as a Range II Offender. In this appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficien cy of the evidence and the length of his sentence. We affirm the judgm ent of the trial court.

Judith Ann Warren Taylor, v. Michael Raymond Taylor
02A01-9706-CV-00112
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: Judge Janice M. Holder

Judith Ann Taylor (“Wife”) filed a complaint for divorce against Michael Raymond Taylor (“Husband”) and also sought an injunction prohibiting Husband from dissipating marital assets. Husband filed an answer and counter-complaint for divorce. The trial court granted Wife the divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct and awarded her rehabilitative alimony, partial attorney fees, and 60% of the marital assets. Husband appeals and raises the following issues:whether the trial court erred (1) in awarding Wife rehabilitative alimony of $1,300 per month for 60 months; (2) in ordering Husband to pay $20,000 as alimony in solido for Wife’s attorney fees; (3) in ordering Husband to pay a portion of Wife’s health insurance coverage; (4) in requiring Husband to maintain a life insurance policy which exceeds the total amount of child support owed; and (5) in dividing the marital property of the parties. Wife submits the additional issue of whether she is due attorney fees on appeal. For the reasons stated below, we find no error and affirm the trial court’s judgment in all respects.

General Electric Company v. Process Control Company
01S01-9707-FD-00148
Authoring Judge: Justice Janice M. Holder
Trial Court Judge: Judge James D. Todd

This case comes to us on a certified question of law. The plaintiff, General Electric Company ("G.E."), filed this action for contribution against Process Control Company ("Process Control"). Process Control filed a motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment arguing that Tennessee law does not permit a right of contribution in this case. The district court entered an order requesting this Court to address the following certified question of law: In actions that accrue after the decision in McIntyre v. Balentine, under what circumstances is a claim for contribution appropriate under Tennessee Law? We accepted certification of the question. We hold that under the facts as certified an action for contribution may be viable.

State of Tennessee vs. Amanda Treece
02C01-9711-CC-00438
Authoring Judge: Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Trial Court Judge: Judge Franklin Murchison

Following an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court of Chester County entered an order which revoked Defendant’s probation and ordered her to serve her original sentence of four (4) years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. The Defendant, Amanda Treece, appeals from that action of the trial court. W hile Defendant does not challenge the revocation of probation, she argues in her sole issue on appeal that the trial court erred by requiring her to serve her entire sentence by incarceration in the Department of Correction. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Norman Mayes, et ux., v. Claude Yow, et ux., and William Scarboro, et ux.
03A01-9706-CV-00203
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Houston M. Goddard
Trial Court Judge: Judge Harold Wimberly

This appeal results from a suit brought by Normal Mayes and his wife, Ruth Mayes, against Claude Yow and his wife, Frances Yow, Willard Scarbro and his wife, Cleo Scarbro, who was added as a party Defendant subsequent to the filing of the original complaint, and Partners & Associates, Inc.

William Michael Anderton vs. Evelyn Adele Morgan Anderton - Concurring
01A01-9701-CH-00013
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Judge Henry Denmark Bell

This is the second appeal concerning a husband’s support obligations following the dissolution of a 23-year marriage. The Chancery Court for Williamson County originally directed the husband to pay $1,731 per month in child support and $5,500 per month in spousal support for five years and then $5,000 per month thereafter. On the first appeal, this court remanded the case to the trial court to revisit the child support and spousal support awards. Even though the trial court concluded that the husband’s income had decreased significantly, it increased the husband’s child support to $2,000 per month and left its original spousal support order unchanged. It also awarded the wife judgments for a sizeable spousal support arrearage and a nominal child support arrearage. On this appeal, the husband again takes issue with the amount of his spousal support and child support obligations and also insists that he is entitled to retroactive relief on his spousal support arrearage and to the lifting of the injunction with regard to his 401k plan. We vacate the child support and spousal support awards and remand them to the trial court for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

Holland D. Lane and wife, Cynthia Lane; Bobby Jo Knight and Kay Grimes, v. Willie Lee Barr and wife Dorothy Sue Barr, et al.
01A01-9708-CH-00449
Authoring Judge: Judge Alan E Highers
Trial Court Judge: Chancellor Allen W. Wallace

Plaintiffs/Appellants, Holland D. Lane, Cynthia Lane, Bobby Joe Knight, and Kay 2 Grimes, appeal the judgment of the trial court dismissing their complaint, finding that appellants lacked standing to bring an action under Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208(a)(2) and that the use of their land by defendants/appellees, Willie and Dorothy Barr, as a tire landfill was a prior non-conforming use. For reasons stated hereinafter, we affirm the decision of the trial court.